Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read comment pieces from this morning's papers.

1. America has lost the battle over government (Financial Times)

Both parties are accomplices to the premeditated asphyxiation of the state, says Jeffrey Sachs.

2. To hell with Gradgrinds – go to university (Independent)

It matters that we live in a country that no longer believes in training minds from all backgrounds, says Laurie Penny.

3. It’s Sweden that Assange fears, not America (Times) (£)

Whether the WikiLeaks founder likes it or not, he is no political refugee, says David Aaronovitch. But he has a real case to answer in law.

4. If Romney beats Obama, Ryan will set the tone and call the shots (Guardian)

The candidate is no Sarah Palin, and should he come to office he could be a tough foil to an indecisive president, writes Martin Kettle.

5. China’s very different election show (Financial Times)

The country’s democratic process is in full swing, but the result of the election will not be left to chance, says David Pilling.

6. A-level results: a day to celebrate (Guardian)

Don't listen to the cynics and the grumblers, writes David Willetts. Opportunities are being opened up in higher education like never before.

7. We volunteered for Games, but not for Big Society (Independent)

Volunteering at the London Olympics was a glorious one-off, but a one-off nonetheless, writes Mary Dejevsky.

8. The reason I won't be buying Fifty Shades of Grey loungewear (Guardian)

What do EL James' trilogy, Cosmopolitan and cosmetic surgery have in common? They seem to be about sex, when really they are about shopping, says Zoe Williams.

9. I hate to say it, but Boris is right: The government must stop pussyfooting around (Daily Mail)

As one alarming statistic after another confirms the dire state of the British economy, we should be in no doubt that the Government is fiddling while Rome burns, writes Daniel Johnson.

10. Our South Africans are on a sticky wicket (Daily Telegraph)

Kevin Pietersen is only one of many to use the England team for his own selfish ends, says Peter Oborne.

Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496